Response to Critic of Intelligent Design
Critic: “The only substantive part of ID is as a negative argument that diametrically opposed to evolution, otherwise it has nothing of substance to offer science.”
Response: False on three points. i) ID is a positive argument that intelligence preceded and caused the origin of life. ID is an independent theory that would not necessarily be true if evolution were proven false. ii) ID is not diametrically opposed to evolution, if “evolution” is defined as “change over time.” ID is diametrically opposed to the theory that living things originated from random events. iii) The goal of ID is not to “offer” something to “science,” the goal is the same as that of science. . .to seek the truth concerning our origins. ID is a testable theory that can be falsified in exactly the same way as the theory of evolution.
Critic: “Imagine teaching ecology in school without a fundamental understanding of Darwinism and evolution. What would ID tell these students, other than the showing and teaching these alleged students the incredible complexity of nature? What’s the explanation for these systems and their numerous interactions? God did it of course. Cool huh? Sorry, that’s not science”
Response: Straw-man argument. Both ID and Darwinism seeks to learn how these systems and their numerous interactions work. The only difference is ID says an intelligent being is responsible, Darwinism says random chance is responsible. If you push any Darwinist far enough, they will say “random chance did it.” Cool huh. . .But that’s not science either!
Critic: “I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems. “There are no models, the ID proponents got nothing but faith.”
Response: Predictive model: Animals were designed by an intelligent designer and have genetic limits outside which they are no longer viable. These limits will constrain the fossil record to be composed of clearly delineated familial forms rather than transitional forms. Experimental evidence: the fossil record.Now it’s your turn. Please explain the cambrian explosion in purely Darwinian terms.
Critic: “I have my faith too but the difference is I don’t subject you to it.”
Response: False. We are constantly subjected to atheistic and naturalistic explanations of our origins even though these explanations require a great deal of faith. Moreover, you impose your faith on others in a condescending and arrogant manner suggesting you are unaware of the assumptions on which your faith is based.
Critic: “Science is not faith but a way of reasoning”
Response: True if by “science” you mean the scientific method. False if by “science” you mean currently accepted theories. Darwin’s theory of the origin of life requires a great deal of faith that foes far beyond simply “a way of reasoning.”
Critic: Simple question: sum up for me how ID describes the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem?
Response: Simple answer. Almost exactly the same way evolutionists would describe the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem.
Critic: “[ID] can’t use competition and evolution to describe the changing ecosystem or fluctuating species populations.”
Response: Straw man argument. All ID theorists believe that competition and survival of the fittest occurs in a changing ecosystem. Long before ID or the theory of evolution, mankind was aware that populations could be manipulated through breeding and artificial selection-this is even part of Darwin’s premise in origins.
Critic: “What would ID have to say? Wow, this is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that’s fine but it’s not science and you can’t do anything with it.
Response: Straw-man argument. The history of modern science rests on the backs of scientists who believed in ID. Complexity in nature did not lead them to say “forget about understanding this,” instead it drove them to understand it further because they believed the more the learned about nature, the more they were learning about the designer. Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk!
Critic: Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don’t need to give people another excuse not to think.”
Response: True. What greater excuse is there to not think deeply about something than to believe it came about by an infinitesimally small, accidental, random event. In my experience human beings don’t spend a lot of time trying to understand random, rare events (might I get struck by lightning on a sunny day?), but take very seriously purposefully designed events (could I get electrocuted if I touch this live wire?). Evolutionists are the ones that don’t want to have to think. They prefer to make straw-man arguments, make false assumptions, and throw around condescending statements rather than wrestling with the faith they have placed in a dying theory.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General |
May 9th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Intelligent design creationism is a childish belief in magic.
Intelligent design means “I’m too lazy to study science, and I’m too stupid to understand science, therefore everything was magically created by the fairy who lives in my tiny defective brain”.
You IDiots need to grow up and educate yourselves. You need to stop being cowards and face facts. Biological evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for it is massive and powerful. If you don’t understand the evidence then study it. The willful ignorance of creationists is disgusting. What’s the problem with creationists? Are they stupid? Lazy? Too brainwashed to understand anything?
You creationist morons have made America a laughing stock. Just keep your breathtaking stupidity in your churches and out of our schools.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
“a dying theory”
Biological evolution is a dying theory?
Are you a compulsive liar or are you just plain stupid?
May 9th, 2008 at 2:38 am
“The history of modern science rests on the backs of scientists who believed in ID.”
Try to be more honest. You are really saying this:
“The history of modern science rests on the backs of scientists who believed in MAGIC.”
You are so full of it. Creationists are insane.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Thanks for the response. I will consider your overwhelming use of facts and try to respond. In your three short responses you:
1. call me lazy
2. say I had a defective brain
3. call me an idiot
4. call me a coward
5. ask me if I was stupid
6. ask me if I was plain stupid
7. ask me if I was a coward
8. tell me I was full of it
9. tell me I was insane
During the next few days I will gather facts and information to disprove your incredible defense of evolution and, I assume, atheism. It appears you must be a contributing editor for a scientific journal with this amazing use of “science.”
http://www.generationword.com
May 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
GW-
This is hilarious. This evolutionist (BobC) comes on calling names but not giving any evidence. I’m dying of laughter here.
The evolutionist says Nobody took Nothing and made something. The creationist says Somebody took Nothing and made something. So who believes in Magic?
You could ask this fellow to keep his breathtaking stupidity off your website, but the comedic value is well worth it.
Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
May 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Can any Darwinist improve on Dawkins explanation of the origin of the first living cell? Dawkins said the original living cell on earth came from some form of alien life that planted life here on earth. Is that the Darwinist’s final answer for the original question? In a sense, this answer is not far from the Christian scriptures if you consider the Lord God as an alien life source. I ask any Darwinist to explain the origin of the first living cell . . . .anyone . . . . . anyone . . . anyone?
May 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
One of the greatest hoaxes going on in this country is the notion that some people don’t have faith, that atheists somehow have a neutral position - and they should be the ones determining what is to be taught our schools and universities. The truth is that everyone has faith. Christians have faith that there is a God, atheists have faith that there is not a God. Both sides have faith, but the law of non contradiction says both faith claims can’t be true. The question is which side has the most evidence to support their claim of truth? The Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias has said that it is interesting to note that in the great debates between Christian philosophers and atheists, most atheists no longer claim to be atheists (no god), but claim to be agnostics (no knowledge of god). Why? Because you cannot prove that there is no God. The atheists were getting their lunch ate in these debates. Think about it, how would science which limits itself to materialism and the physical senses be able to search outside the box of materialism and prove there there is no God - which claims to be spirit (John 4:24) and thus is non material and dwells in the supernatural / non material world? It can’t be done. It would be like you asking me to prove that there is not a rock on the other side of a planet in the furthest reaches of our galaxy. I am limited to this world and can’t get into that world to prove my point. I may or may not be able to prove there is a God, but you can’t prove that there is not a God. You have to make that statement on faith - belief in the unknown. You can’t make that claim of truth on evidence or the scientific method. The question then is, which faith do you want to teach in our schools - theism or atheism?
It is sad when the argument in this debate turns into name calling. I usually find that ad hominem attacks are usually used when a person doesn’t have a valid critical argument. I also find that there is a lot of misinformation on what ID actually is. Intelligent design theory is not a test for the truth of God, intelligent design is a test for the truth of design. ID theory does not tell what the design was for, how the design came about, or who the designer was. Those are all questions that have to be answered after the truth of intelligent design has been determined. ID theory is a testable theory - it can be tested and falsified, just like any other scientific theory. I can use ID theory on known things that are designed, like my watch, my computer or my car. In none of those cases would we say, “God designed it!” It is when we use ID theory on things of unknown design, like DNA, that the atheistic scientists get nervous. I find it interesting that the atheists say that there is no evidence for God, and then they won’t allow evidence like ID to be used in presenting a case for the truth of design because it might lead to questions of truth about God. Seems like a catch-22 to me! Science is the search for truth and that search should include examining all the evidence. As “Expelled” has shown, that does not seem to be the case in a lot of our universities, including my alma mater, Iowa State.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
[…] offer science.??? Response: False on three points. i ID is a positive argument that intelligence prehttp://blog.generationword.com/2008/05/08/response-to-critic-of-intelligent-design/Predation among animals may have caused 500 mln year old explosion of life New KeralaWashington, May […]